Posts Tagged ‘morality’

I recently read a piece in the NY Times advocating for passage of an “End of Life Option Act” in California that would allow terminally ill individuals to receive assistance in accelerating the process of dying. The story (“Death Without Dignity” – 10 JUN 2015) touched on a point that I have been wrestling with for some time, one that was succinctly made by a commenter on that story under the screen name “HappyCyclist” from Charlottesville, VA.

“For a long time people have taken their pets to veterinarians to be “put to sleep” when the animals have been too ill to live a good life any longer. I haven’t done this with a pet myself but I understand this process is painless and quick. So there is knowledge how to do this.”

In the case of a suffering pet assisted death, or euthanasia, is considered merciful and an act of love and caring for the pet. Those who continue to pump medicines into the animal or subject it to continued extraordinary care just to keep it around a few more days or weeks are considered cruel, selfish owners who are more interested in their own comfort than in the comfort of their beloved pet.

Yet when it comes to humans we turn that reasoning on its head. No longer are we concerned about the comfort of the dying loved one. Now we must use every means possible to deny death its victory, to extend that life just a little longer. This is done often when the patient is in a coma, completely unaware of what is going on, or worse when the patient is experiencing tremendous pain and must endure debilitating pain medications. It is akin to torture, and if we were to subject criminals to this during their executions it would rightly be branded as cruel and unusual punishment.

Are we, in our mistaken and misguided attempt to preserve life at all costs, simply prolonging the suffering of our loved one? Would it not be more humane, more loving, to allow our loved one some dignity in their final moments, allowing them to make the choice of when to die, when to say that final goodbye, and in doing so avoid what so many of us fear: a painful and torturous passing?

Okay, the Empire in Star Wars had a lot of bad guys. Palpatine wasn’t exactly the warm grandfatherly type. Gran Moff Tarkin was practically a caricature of antisocial personality disorder. And Vader didn’t just have a bad publicist.

But… was the Empire really “bad” versus the Rebel Alliance being the “good guys”?

I’m no Star Wars expert, but I don’t remember the Empire waging war or attacking anyone except Rebels. The Empire built a relatively stable infrastructure (off the back of the Old Republic, yes) that kept most citizens relatively content and basic needs met, with the opportunity for improvement. Case in point: the Rebels were a pretty small group, meaning very little popular support. That’s a good indicator of a content populace, overall, in such a large and widespread nation.

Being friends with that idiot Jar Jar is a good indicator of evilness.

Xenophobia wasn’t portrayed as common in the movies. While not many non-humans served in the Imperial Armed Forces, non-humans were treated as citizens. Even brainless teddy bears like the Ewoks were left in relative peace.

Endor may not have been prime real estate, but the Empire’s urban sprawl could have easily spread to a hospitable moon. Evidence suggests that the Empire had a fairly complex – yet fair – legal system, that took into account the needs of varying species.

Even Darth Ani’s motivations were based on long-term stability and peace:

“With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.”

Everything adds up to the Empire being a bureaucratic snarl, like any government in history, but it wasn’t bad in itself. As always, individual actions can be morally repugnant, but that isn’t a product of the system.

It’s too easy in worldbuilding to clearly define “evil” and “good” in social, political, or moral structures. It was something we wanted to avoid – there really isn’t a lot of clearly definable black and white, bad versus good, in complex systems like that.

In this case, the Brotherhood of the Ebon Circle.

Their purpose is beyond unsavory – they’re slave traders with a corporate structure to make slavery as efficient and profit-making as possible. Everyone is a potential saleable asset to them. Very few people outside the Brotherhood express approval of what they do… that supporter might bring a big profit if they were in chains.

Yet, the Brotherhood is still tolerated in Serndall. And not just tolerated, but endorsed in many ways. Why?

For one thing, they spend a lot of gold which supports the local economy. It’s hard for a tavern owner to stick to moral superiority when a large percentage of the tavern’s income is derived from serving slavers. The Brotherhood has a corporation-like efficiency and structure, requiring a lot of external hiring for mundane tasks: chefs, accountants, armorers, etc.

There is also a level of social responsibility the Brotherhood displays. They support the games in the Grand Arena as a form of popular entertainment. They don’t directly attack members of the Crimson Legion in the city proper. They adhere to local laws, even when it’s against their immediate interests.

So is the Brotherhood evil or the bad guys? I believe that’s a personal moral judgment on the player’s part.

Which makes people think. And that’s a good thing for any game, we believe.